Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not all women have babies. I'm 52 and never had kids. Should we apply different standards depending on whether or not one wants to reproduce? What about men who are stay at home dads, should they have to declare this intent early in their career, to make sure they are paid less as you feel female full-time caregivers should be? What about women whose kids are grown and gone? Who keeps track of all this, and how? Seems a lot simpler to just pay people the same salary range for the same job.
When hiring a person who is in their 20's or early 30's, employers and managers know that there is a much better chance that a woman will take off for an extended period of time to have children and/or raise them. That is just a fact. So the more 'important' jobs and positions have a greater likelihood of going to men.
The vast majority of companies are in business to make money not social commentary. An employee is a large investment, that is a fact. It's natural to want to invest in something with better odds. I know many woman who have voluntarily left their careers because they want to raise their children. There is nothing wrong with that at all; it's very admirable; however, it should be the responsibility of a company to reward admirable that doesn't benefit them.
Sure, it sucks to be a woman that has no desire to have kids and is essentially penalized because many do, but life isn't fair.
Professional athletes who have had an injury will tend to make less even if there is no evidence that further injuries will occur. It's not fair that they are penalized, but it's just part of a life not guaranteed to be fair.
Ask anybody in the pharmaceutical sales industry if it's fair that young attractive women are hired much more often than older men.
Anyone who has seen the parade of sales representatives through a doctor's waiting room has probably noticed that they are frequently female and invariably good looking.
Attractive workers are asked fewer questions during job interviews, are more likely to be promoted, and earn 10% more in salary than their average or unattractive co-workers, according to the Beauty and the Labor Market study conducted by Daniel Hamermesh and Jeff Biddle.
I just skimmed this particular discussion because it popped up in the "sidebar" on the forums.
Like so many things, I think the truth is found somewhere in the middle. IMO, there are a lot of self-proclaimed feminists out there who take things to the extreme. Maybe they feel it's necessary to do that, to draw enough attention to issues so a compromise is found between what they're yelling about and where things are at currently? Or maybe they just have a distorted view of reality? I can't say....
What I would say is that societal pressures and norms probably create the majority of the perceived problems with such things as "male dominated professions, where women are given second-rate treatment and/or pay". For example, I work in I.T. and computer support. In my field, female computer technicians or systems administrators are VERY few and far between. I've never seen evidence it was due to males trying to keep women out though? In fact, I've directly observed the exact opposite, with bosses who bent over backwards to hire a female for an opening (with the opinion it would add a "breath of fresh air" around the place and provide an employee with a new way of thinking about things). In the end, the small number of female applicants were SO unqualified, it just wasn't possible to extend them a job offer.
By contrast, I've seen a fair number of women doing a superior job in the role of a project manager over an I.T. department, or as a software developer. It just seems the roles of computer tech or sysadmin/network admin are ones women shied away from -- probably because of a sense they were "jobs for guys". There's no physical reason a woman can't do them.
I think due to economic factors alone, it's just not usually feasible for a family with a kids or kids to be in a situation with neither parent works a full-time career type job. Anything less just doesn't really pay the bills. On the flip side, there's a LOT of pressure to be home and not give 100% effort to one's job or career when one has kids. The schools are always applying pressure, for example, to participate in their activities, meetings, and functions -- most of which happen during the time you're otherwise at work or doing the commute back home from it. Factor in all the doctor/dental appointments and everything else -- and there's a lot to juggle.
Traditionally, men have carried the torch of doing the full-time work and giving that predominant focus, while the female partner handles the rest of the household needs. The feminists are basically saying, "Not fair!" to this, which I think may or may not be true at all. If you're a woman who doesn't intend to ever have kids? Then by all means, take that full-time career path and don't look back! If you're doing that and running into discrimination for that choice? THEN you have legitimate issues to complain about.
If, however, you signed up to raise a family and after getting into the middle of it all, you decided it's unfair that "you're expected to do everything"? I take issue with that. (And yes, my wife and I butt heads over this one, to an extent, too.) I know in our case, both of us have worked in a career type full-time position and we're both capable of earning pretty similar salaries. The thing is, I've expressed from day 1 that I'm not the type who feels cut out to be a "stay at home dad". I don't find it personally fulfilling. It drains my energy dealing with kids and all the micro-managing of the daily household stuff, and unlike some people? I don't really get a lot of satisfaction out of teaching a kid how to do something new. I much prefer being the "bread winner" in the more traditional style. I do, on the other hand, feel a sense of comfort in knowing I'm managing the finances closely. I enter every single receipt into Quicken on the computer, for example, and scan in every invoice or bill.
From her viewpoint? I think she wants to work full-time and defines herself as a "career woman", despite us having kids. She feel she should be able to find a job that pays enough so I can just stay home and be that "stay at home dad", in the perfect world. She's grounded enough in reality, however, to know that's just not happening right now. (It's not quite the booming economy of the late 90's anymore.) So she gets frustrated and thinks the "fair" thing is for me to take on about 50% of her household and kid-related responsibilities while both of us work full-time. Anything less, and I'm "not doing my share".
I say, wrong. Why? Because #1, she doesn't take the financial responsibility that I do when it comes to managing money and paying the bills. She can never tell you how much is in her checking account at any given time, and she often just "runs out of money" until the next paycheck, after spending too much. That, alone, tells me she's probably not the better one to handle the majority of the financial needs in the home. But #2, she's just the logically better one at dealing with the kids and their needs. Even if I "suck it up" and do all of it, despite not liking it? We have two daughters, and there's so much involved there that requires a woman's feedback. As a guy, I sure wasn't the best one to run to when one of them had her first period. I'm clueless about giving advice on girl's clothes. I never even had a sister growing up, and can't give the best suggestions when one of them comes to with "guy problems" at school.
In the end, I don't think "womens' rights" really have much of anything to do with this stuff? That's just a smoke-screen. The real problem has to do with people not communicating their individual priorities and desires well enough before committing to marriage. There's room in this world to be pretty much ANYONE you want to be, but sometimes that requires flying in the face of convention -- and has consequences, such as thinning out the pool of potential life partners for you.
^^^I find it odd that you don't feel you should share the household chores & such because your wife isn't the one writing out the checks every month for the bills. That's a monthly chore that takes minutes to do, unlike actual chores such as cleaning, cooking, helping out w/the kids etc. which is a daily thing. There really is no comparison.
Just took a graduate class on this, and I work for a Women's Resource Center. Whatever reasons men give for not paying women equally ranks up there with the social injustice of certain ethnicities being stereotyped as less/more productive and shouldn't be paid equally either. The underlying reason is sexism here, and every other excuse is just that--an excuse. When there are single mothers out there unable to make ends meet because they have to work TWO jobs to provide for their children, all because some MEN think they don't work as many hours as everybody else, something is wrong with the world. Times are different and most families need a second income to be okay. Wouldn't it benefit the men of the family too, if the wife could make more money? This post just oooooozes with privilege. *drops mic
I think what you meant was that:
Women want to EAT their cake and HAVE it TOO!
Yes, yes they do...
Another example is yearning for the fifties when it comes to chivalry but not being a good housewife!
Ooooh! Double burn!!! no... I think the eat it too one was correct...
I don't see this as a women-bashing thread. And that long post a few posts up... forgot your name... I totally get where you're coming from. My guy handles the money and I don't mind planning and cooking meals, though he rocks the grilling out!! (as guys usually do) I bet you get out there on the lawnmower, don't you? (please don't tell me you make her cut the grass...) and car stuff is USUALLY the guy's job.
I've always thought, if women want to be in combat (and most of them really don't) we should have units of ALL WOMEN. Just like shipboard... if women are to be on ships, then staff the entire ship with women. After all, they're as good as men, right? Then you don't have to worry about pregnancies while afloat. Too many times I've seen double standards in military. Let's water down the requirements so women can compete. NO, let the guys go full bore and take the women out of the equation. UGH. You're not doing the guys any service for making them slow down. Might even get them killed.
Just took a graduate class on this, and I work for a Women's Resource Center. Whatever reasons men give for not paying women equally ranks up there with the social injustice of certain ethnicities being stereotyped as less/more productive and shouldn't be paid equally either. The underlying reason is sexism here, and every other excuse is just that--an excuse. When there are single mothers out there unable to make ends meet because they have to work TWO jobs to provide for their children, all because some MEN think they don't work as many hours as everybody else, something is wrong with the world. Times are different and most families need a second income to be okay. Wouldn't it benefit the men of the family too, if the wife could make more money? This post just oooooozes with privilege. *drops mic
The problem with that specific argument is that men do work more hours than women. Conversely women perform more of the household chores than men do. Further, numerous economic studies (including one from the DOL and the federal reserve) found anywhere from 2% to 5% in unexplained wage discrepancies; which isn't to say that there is any discrimination going on, but does indicate that we need further research in this area. After all, it's one thing if women are getting paid less because they don't negotiate, but quite another if there is active discrimination going on.
As to the bold, single mothers are working 2 jobs because they had a kid they couldn't afford (presumably before they completed their education).
Women have many jobs as do men. However some jobs that women concentrate on are different than the jobs that men concentrate on. They are both very passionate about the things in life they choose to dwell on. Put a baby in a mother's arms and she will want to raise that baby. Few would rather work. Most would rather be at home to be attentive to every need the baby has. This makes work schedules tricky. Many women take to working off shifts to compensate for time they would otherwise miss with the family. Many jobs women have do not have the luxury of varying shifts. This is tricky too. Care for child can be expensive and difficult. Nothing is harder for a woman than to slight her child for any reason.
Trying to be a working woman has its ups and downs. Women are brilliant. They get this from their unlimited passion. Their creativity comes from so many sources; they cannot be counted. Having women in the working place is a great way to cultivate closeness between people, provided they are not caddy and stay professional. Woman can and do also cultivate an awareness of trouble shooting, not because they learned it in a seminar or in a masters of business curriculum, but from down to earth practical knowledge.
Should they earn the same wage? Absolutely. I know many CEOs and upper management may consider women to be questionable resources because when the family calls, she will have to leave. She still can work any shift as she often proves, write anything, add anything, negotiate anything, surgically repair anything, and build boats, cars, and airplanes. Go ahead pay her the respect she deserves and the finances she earns.
Last edited by cternes; 04-10-2014 at 12:11 AM..
Reason: spelling
I'm all for equal pay, as I work in a healthcare facility where everyone is paid the same. I love it!
5 gallon water jug needs to be changed in the break room, and some woman comes up to me and asks me to change it, and? I love it! I love it!
"Don't drop it now!"
One nurse, angered, said to me: Well, I'm an old-fashioned kind of woman!
Wanna know something about this old-fashioned woman? She has a deadbeat boyfriend, doesn't work, and she's supporting him! Well, perhaps, that's what they did in the old days! Lol!
And then pop out a few babies. Why are women so up in arms stating that they dont get paid as much as men. Its a frivolous argument and makes good politics in a mid-term year but other than that, there are many underlying reasons why women do not make as much as men and it has nothing to do with prejudice.
Some women earn a lower salary than men with the same credentials because they take time out to have a family. Equal men, who don't have a good reason to take time out of a career, excel faster.
What other underlying reason is there for inequity in pay?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about men who are stay at home dads, should they have to declare this intent early in their career, to make sure they are paid less as you feel female full-time caregivers should be? What about women whose kids are grown and gone? Who keeps track of all this, and how? Seems a lot simpler to just pay people the same salary range for the same job.
Not necessarily
